Here is what I think will happen if we don’t decide whether it will be 3 months or more to gather support.
1. We freeze the features 2. No one works on testing it for months but I hope I am wrong 3. Features get merged in trunk. 4. We now need to cut 4.1 or whatever is next as this has more features in this 4. Support comes for 4.1 due to features 5. 4.0 loses its purpose Why not gather support now....see when people can help and then decide on freeze. Also ask features which will motivate people to test. We cannot do all this after freeze. Let’s work on quantifying the date for freeze with these inputs. I agree your point that with more features it will be harder to test but may be without those features no one will test it. Just my opinion :) > On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:37, Sylvain Lebresne <lebre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> We can fix test after freezing if there are resources people are willing >> to put. We need to gather support to see who can help with the 3 points I >> have mentioned and when. >> > > Again though, without disagreeing with your points, those don't play into > when we freeze. If we freeze tomorrow, even if it take 3 months to gather > sufficient support for testing, there will still be less to test than if we > push the freeze in 3 months and more things are committed in that > time-frame. And in fact, the sooner we freeze, the sooner the project is > making the statement that people that are willing to contribute to the > project should now do so helping testing rather than continuing working on > their pet ticket. And don't get me wrong, it's an open source project, we > can't force anyone to do anything, so people may continue working on there > pet ticket even after freeze. But we can at least, as a project, make it > clear what kind of contributions are "preferred" at any given time. > > >> >> On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:13, Sylvain Lebresne <lebre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I agree there's little point freezing if we can't even test the system >>>> properly. >>>> >>> >>> I'll mention that I really don't follow the logic of such claim. Why >> can't >>> we >>> fix the testing of the system after freezing? In fact, isn't the whole >>> point of freezing agreeing that it's high time to fix that? Isn't it >> easier >>> to fix tests (and focus on the testing environment if needs be) when >>> things are frozen and code isn't changing from under you? >>> >>> PS: all the questions of this email are rhetorical. >>> >>> -- >>> Sylvain >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
